Locke wrote his concepts of the self in a response to Descartes and used similar terminology and addressed many of the same issues. Although there are several disagreements in their work, both can be considered analogous in many ways. One distinct difference between the authorships, is the motivation of Locke in penning An Essay concerning Human Understanding.
Both a direct motivation, and the ironically innate thesis of Locke’s work on identity, was to make an argument about the idea of moral culpability. The Renaissance was dwindling and a new era of thinkers in Europe were emerging, and with them, new ideas about the role of the government, and the value and role of the individual person. Locke, who also wrote on related topics, needed to make a claim in regard to the extent in which a person could be held accountable for his, or her actions.
The previous dominant ideas of the self were from a separate writer, Descartes, who did not make a special distinction about how humans themselves are self-aware. Descartes’ notions about the genesis of self-awareness, the concept of the individual being aware of their own existence, were grandiose and lacked an explanation of a causal mechanism. Locke, despite agreeing with many of Descartes’ claims, did not perceive the question of the self to be satisfactorily answered (Locke).
Although John Locke expands on the claims of other writers, he does not specifically reject others’ ideas outright, but does make distinctions that they are ineffective. Descartes for example, makes the claim that humans are the basal point of the genesis of their own self-identity, but does not track the pathway via which said genesis happens, only stating that self-awareness is not bestowed externally upon a person. Locke agrees with Descartes in claiming that people are in fact the arbiter of their own self-identity but Locke expands to further demonstrate how it comes to be (Locke).
There is a tremendous amount of theological influence on Locke and other enlightenment writers, and whereas there are frequent allusions to Judeo-Christian doctrine, the analysis and application of the writings is selective (Locke). For example, Locke claims that the self is not represented by the physical body, nor the presence of a soul, as the soul itself has no worldly interaction. Well, despite referencing divinity frequently, Locke fails to address that the same Judeo-Christian text which he uses to demonstrate certain claims disagrees with the idea that the soul is not what makes a person to the active state of being.
Locke instead claims that a person’s consciousness is what activates their self-awareness (Locke). To Locke, consciousness is a collection of a person’s memories and experiences that the individual derives his, or her identity from, like the whole person being a sum of what can be purposefully recalled (Locke). Either possible, or impossible actions that result from Locke’s concept of consciousness shape the individual’s perspective and thus, their own perception of self-identity.
The corporeal body to Locke, is activated and controlled by the will of the person who acts as a result of their identity, and so the body cannot be the genesis; the soul has no Earthy interaction and can neither be the originate (Locke). Locke argues that the causality which escaped the Cartesian model of self-awareness is in the correlation of moving through life and gaining memories and experiences and then better shaping and forming the identity of the self; to Locke, one causes the other (Locke).
Locke addresses the Cartesian principles of identity through concession. Locke does not disagree that the idea of self-awareness is caused by the individual making the decision to become self-aware, but rather that said identity and mechanism to make the decision is the result of memories and experiences; Locke maligns children as a demonstration of how their lack of knowledge is the converse evidence which explains a child’s lack of formative identity (Locke).
Locke assumes however, that a person will then develop self-awareness. The issue is that not all people have equal experiences, or a varied experience throughout life, and with Locke’s principles, it is then possible to spuriously conclude that age somehow innately collects a greater self-identity.
Locke has a certain advantage because he is in part correct. What Locke indirectly referenced was the idea that there are parts of human consciousness that are not always known to the individual, but that create preferences and motivate action and result in self and character defining memories and interpersonal interactions. Locke was referencing more the idea that people were an active collection of thoughts, feelings and memories that were an amalgamation of life that accrued and better revealed the individual to themselves, and Locke is correct that people gauge themselves how he describes. Where Locke fails as his observation is that the mechanism of self and consciousness is far more complex than he could imagine.
The entire field of psychoanalysis demonstrates that Locke was in part correct. Locke may have glossed over too much, too quickly and used awkward and only partially relevant exampled (like claiming children have nothing meaningful to add), but humans are a mental sponge and there is more that affects the identity and the self than can be actively recalled on a whim. Nearly 300 years would pass before social science would gather enough material to make contributions to enlightenment writers on the notions of self-awareness and identity.
One residue from Locke’s work is the idea of a seniority-based culture. Now, the idea of elders being leaders, or having a greater say in the outcome of another’s fate is not new, it was not to Locke, nor is the idea culturally specific. Locke was also imbrued with the dual notion of having both sitting monarchs rule tightly over the known world, but also concepts of limited government. In regard to non-authoritarian social structure however, the idea that there is a nebulous force that naturally garners an older person with more ability, or wisdom is in part a consequence of Locke’s work in many of the Western societies.
John Locke’s overarching concept of wisdom is demonstrated by his continued attempts to find the lowest common denominator. The confusion of cynicism as wisdom is not new in the 21st Century, and Locke was neither the pioneer. Without being overly fallacious, there is reason to assume that associating a high percentage of correct suppositions about people means that said suppositions are accurate; but, that is not the case. John Locke’s essay outlined the most basal, and crudely grunt habits of human beings and by claiming such a commonality, Locke drew conclusions.
The idea that children are inept is vitriol delivered from a bourgeois aristocrat who had equally condescending views of subordinate classes in the society in which he lived, Locke’s conclusions more accurately describe his disconnect and contempt for other people, more than provide the reader with any notable insight. As part of the consequence of Locke’s era and locale, his conclusions are immeasurably culturally myopic, but that is with many enlightenment ‘thinkers.’ There are massive, macro-level conclusions drawn about all of humanity from assumptions and observations of slivers of demographics of people who live and die under a brutal caste system; it is not particularly difficult to understand why views of humans could be so stifling and bleak if surrounded by those who are oppressed under feudal law.
Personally, Locke reveals how deep the notion of cherry-picking evidence is in the Western world. The trend of ignoring unpleasant caveats is neither scientific, nor wise, and has remained a steadfast habit in all truly arrogant people who retain a colonial mindset. Other thinkers of Locke’s era/ genre occasionally dabble in similar lapses of humility, and create widespread indictments off of hearsay generated by their own pseudo-academic enclave.
One struggle with all enlightenment writers is that their ideas are given empirical credence, as though they were contemporary studies to support their ideas. Despite the hypothetical situations and parables that are often delivered to illustrate claims, Locke and several of his peers are used in the 21st Century to still create commentary about humanity without evaluating the truth that their perspectives were limited, even if through no fault of their own. Locke wrote on how humans are alone in their ability to differentiate sounds into words, but the leaps and bounds of contemporary biology has revealed many animals communicate with oral, and auditory capabilities; Locke was wrong on the account that the knowledge simply did not exist to him, and such realities should preface him and other enlightenment writings as a disclaimer.
Even in their own time, enlightenment writers disagreed with one another. Hundreds of years later, the ideas of their time still have places in debates that have created and struck down laws, and aided societies in ceasing repeated errors. John Locke was a prolific writer whose commentary on the nature of identity are still studied by social scientists in the 21st Century.
Works Cited
Locke, John. An Essay concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publications, 1959. Print.
